Is the OPC Presbytery of the SE exclusive psalmody?
A Baptist in a Presbyterian church?
- Thread starter Otávio Maziero
- Start date
No, there are very few EP congregations in the OPC and the OPC as a whole is quite hostile to such ideas. One minister even suggesting that psalm singers would not be allowed to be members of his congregation.
If the WCF teaches EP, and Taylor is claiming the presbytery does not allow exceptions, how are the churches not EP?
If the interpretation that the WCF is EP, and someone claims full subscription yet is not EP, they are either being revisionist with the confession or should take an exception. I believe this is why Fred Greco takes exception to the WCF at this point. If the interpretation that the WCF is EP is correct, this would be the honest thing to do.
It is interesting how much confessional subscription has changed in the PCA and OPC over the years. When my minister, who was not EP at the time, was in the PCA he was required to take exception to the confession on exclusive psalm singing. You were required to take exception to the standards if you believed in singing man-made hymns.
When I was in the OPC a few years back, I was told that its basically sectarian and narrow minded not to ordain "orthodox men" who may disagree with the standards on a certain point. I was also told that an exclusive psalmist would not be welcome in this presbytery (or the OPC for that matter). How those two things go together, I do not know. Same sort of issue wrt the sabbath. Folks who thought the sabbath was abiding and had some impact on what one did or didn't do on the Lord's Day were derided as legalists. I had a man who filled the pulpit from time to time walk out of the house and leave a men's gathering because I said it probably wasn't best practice to eat out on the Lord's Day. The OPC has a confessional standard, I think it too often happens to differ from the one that is written down. In the OPC's case, I think animus imponentis has been used to justify far too much.
When I was in the OPC a few years back, I was told that its basically sectarian and narrow minded not to ordain "orthodox men" who may disagree with the standards on a certain point. I was also told that an exclusive psalmist would not be welcome in this presbytery (or the OPC for that matter). How those two things go together, I do not know. Same sort of issue wrt the sabbath. Folks who thought the sabbath was abiding and had some impact on what one did or didn't do on the Lord's Day were derided as legalists. I had a man who filled the pulpit from time to time walk out of the house and leave a men's gathering because I said it probably wasn't best practice to eat out on the Lord's Day. The OPC has a confessional standard, I think it too often happens to differ from the one that is written down. In the OPC's case, I think animus imponentis has been used to justify far too much.
I would say calling the OPC as a whole “quite hostile“ to exclusive psalmody is an extreme assessment. I would be curious to know what OPC minister said he would not allow EP folks even to be members of his congregation, because I highly doubt any presbytery in the OPC would tolerate such extremism. Do you have a name or a source?
Anyway, the question had to do specifically with the Presbytery of the Southeast. To answer that question, no, our presbytery is not by conviction EP. I’m not sure if there are any EP churches in our presbytery, but I do know that our presbytery is certainly not “hostile“ to the conviction.
The PCUSA tradition out of which the OPC (and PCA) come, revised the WCF with the understanding hymns are permitted. They did not do this directly but via the old PCUSA directory for worship. The OPC and PCA do not hold to the original WCF which they altered, so while one can take an exception to the original understanding, which was I believe EP, at least practically speaking, if one wants to, it is not necessary given the PCUSA tradition or what is called adopting intent.
In the PCA recently a licentiate's exception to the original being EP was deemed semantic.
It was Jim Cassidy on a public Facebook post a few years back. He said EPers would not be allowed to be members of his congregation. I was told in private that if I was EP, the OPC "was not the place for me". It was not something that was going to be tolerated of ministers in that presbytery, that is for sure. I guess that is fine, where are they going to find a pulpit anyway?
Recently an acquaintance who is a student at GPTS came to his presbytery for licensure in the PCA. He holds to the Establishment Principle and EP. He was denied on that account, and was told that the Establishment Principle was equivalent to Christian sharia.
I would be shocked if that was exactly what he said. Do you have a way for me to see that post? I have a friend who knows Jim very well. I will ask if that is his position. To be frank, unless I were to see the post, I highly doubt it.
Anyway, the question about subscription and EP in the OPC is interesting, but it seems off-topic to me. It doesn’t help or concern the OP.
Part of this has to do with geography. There is quite a big difference in presbyteries. I've been to an OPC in Northern Michigan that was very similar to the PRC sans piano. My wife's former OPC was as liturgical as they come and elders' families skipped church to go to art festivals. The OPC is not a monolith.
You’re right, it isn’t monolithic, which is what I said a few posts back. Still, a minister saying he would not allow EP folks to be members of his church seems extreme to the max, to the point of being unbelievable. Hence, I would prefer to see an actual statement. And I’m also asking my friend about this because, if true, it is very disturbing.
I was responding to your initial claim that your presbytery requires full subscription which on one interpretation of the WCF would require EP. If the presbytery is not EP, there is either revisionism going on via the BCO or the individual, or an exception is taking place via the BCO or the individual.
I was pushing a little to highlight the point that full subscription is a little fuzzier today than most make it out to be.
I may have seen that. Jim's not being hostile but practical; and he may be consistent if he treats RB's the same way. I would hope if there was no other church he would not show such folks the door, if they were otherwise peaceful. Some of this hostility may be in reaction to bad acting EPs. If everyone would just be mindful and charitable I think there should be no reason EPs couldn't find refuge in a non EP church. I've managed it for 15 years now; granted my late sister's husband is the pastor. He'd like to retire now and so I'm on the committee looking for his replacement.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
The Presbytery of Wisconsin and Minnesota would be the same in regard to EP (they are not EP), but certainly not hostile to it.
I was in the OPC happily for a few years and was EP the entire time. My pastor never gave me a hard time.
Attachments
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
I believe the thinking is that since the authoritative body (the OPC as a whole) does not adopt the document as being an EP document, therefore no exception would be required. I believe @Alan D. Strange has given a talk somewhere online about the technical legal terms involved with this subject. I state all this without giving my opinion one way or another.
See interview here: https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc337/
And I’m in agreement with the OPC and any P&R denomination in America really. What I’m trying to bring out is that I don’t think there is a simple full subscription to the original in reality (an individual and the confession with no layers or filters in between). The confessions have been revised, and layers/filters are further added to that by way of a BCO or Testimony. So even if an individual may not take an exception, there are already varying degrees of interpretational differences between the church bodies which would amount to exceptions had it simply been just an individual and the confession. In other words, “exceptions” in some form are already taking place regardless.
I think this is the right approach. I like the OPC affirmation for membership and confessional subscription for elders. Any greater requirement for membership would seem unbiblically burdensome.
I think to a certain extent you are correct. The Church of Scotland interpreted WCF 23.3 in a certain way (magistrate's ability to call synods when a church is not yet constituted). I think the rub comes when the animus imponentis is used to justify things that the assembly would have never meant.
If a church doesn't believe that 6 day creationism or psalm singing is required for ministers, why not change the confession of the church? I think that is a better practice than allowing for exceptions or cramming things into the intent of the adopting body.
Thanks for the pictures. They’re helpful.
I think what Jim said there is a far cry from “I will not allow EP folks in my church as members.” That doesn’t appear to me to be a charitable reading. The context, terseness, punctuation, and the fact that it’s a social media comment section leads me to believe his remarks were at least to some degree tongue-in-cheek.
Better, more honest, but harder; cramming is easier and avoids the hard work of constitutional change. My guess as to why the PCUSA only changed the directory was to avoid any fight over changing the CF, given the several generation fight over psalmody in the American churches. I may be very wrong but I don't know why otherwise they would not have changed it since they clearly changed a few other places where there were no such fights current or recent.
I don't really have the time nor energy to find old threads, but if I am remembering correctly he elaborated and said he'd allow neither baptists nor exclusive psalm singers to become members because they could not take the 5th membership vow of the OPC. I grant that allowing Baptists in a church creates a sort of Church within the Church scenario, but the application to EPers is troubling. What if I sing hymns but don't recite creeds? I think its a rather narrow interpretation of the 5th vow.
Since confessional subscription is not required for membership as in holding office, a Baptist would have no problem being in a P&R church. Even most baptists would recommend a confessional P&R church over a looser Calvinistic Baptist body. As a Presbyterian I would further recommend it as a Baptist would be more likely to get the right teaching and administration of the sacraments presented which would hopefully lead to them becoming Reformed.Maybe we can steer this discussion back the question of baptism views and membership?
I only say this because good info has been shared that might be worthy of a separate thread title easier to find in search.
Catechised in Heidelberg
Puritan Board Freshman
Don't you think this causes some rather big issues in that congregation? I don't mean attending a Reformed Church (of course this should be possible), I mean becoming a member.
What big issues are you thinking of?
Catechised in Heidelberg
Puritan Board Freshman
You have someone who does not think of the baptised children of believers as members of the visible covenant community. I think this is a pretty big issue, especially if this person is allowed to come to the table.
Otávio Maziero
Puritan Board Freshman
Can you send me a private message showing how you changed your mind?
Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
Otávio Maziero
Puritan Board Freshman
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
I would say go to the Presbyterian Church, assuming they are faithful in the mains (preaching, sacraments, & membership accountability) and be willing to learn from the Pastor. Attend for a season. If your mind is changed, then join and be ready to have the newborn baptized.